• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

3M Co. will drop retirees from health plans, steer to Medicare

Prof. Peabody said:
More victims of Obama Care. I can only hope it motivates them to kick the Democrats to the curb in another month.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make sense because insurance companies do not insure people 65 or older period unless it is a supplemental policy.
 
liblady said:
remember the hoopla about malpractice insurance and how the price should go down with tort reform? guess what........states who enacted tort reform say no decreases in malpractice premiums. wonder why?
Click to expand...

Because most attempts at tort reform were eviscerated by the plaintiff's lawyer lobby, meaning that the laws were ineffective at actually reducing malpractice costs.
 
apdst said:
Or, perhaps the mandates of Obamacare created a situation where insurance companies are forced to raise premiums, or go out of business.

Are you ok with the IRS administrating the healthcare system in this country? I'm not.
Click to expand...

Insurance companies raise premiums all the time. The current changes are not out of the ordinary at all. The company I worked for in 2008 had its premiums go up 30% in one year. I'm pretty sure "Obamacare" did not affect premiums before Obama was even elected.

Also, uhh... When did anyone propose that the IRS administers health insurance and health care?
 
Deuce said:
Insurance companies raise premiums all the time. The current changes are not out of the ordinary at all. The company I worked for in 2008 had its premiums go up 30% in one year. I'm pretty sure "Obamacare" did not affect premiums before Obama was even elected.

Also, uhh... When did anyone propose that the IRS administers health insurance and health care?
Click to expand...

Right here. You didn't read the bill?!?

The IRS Will Enforce The Obama Healthcare Bill
 
Deuce said:
Insurance companies raise premiums all the time. The current changes are not out of the ordinary at all. The company I worked for in 2008 had its premiums go up 30% in one year. I'm pretty sure "Obamacare" did not affect premiums before Obama was even elected.

Also, uhh... When did anyone propose that the IRS administers health insurance and health care?
Click to expand...

Aren't people ashamed to write/ read junk that is purely dogmatic. People may like the goodies in the bill, I do as well. However to say that uncapping payments, insuring kids under 26, etc have no cost is silly. Since there is a cost then what do you expect, it gets passed along. To say that it was great to get a bunch of free stuff makes me wonder if people are serious, are just political hacks or have no clue how business works.
 
washunut said:
Aren't people ashamed to write/ read junk that is purely dogmatic. People may like the goodies in the bill, I do as well. However to say that uncapping payments, insuring kids under 26, etc have no cost is silly. Since there is a cost then what do you expect, it gets passed along. To say that it was great to get a bunch of free stuff makes me wonder if people are serious, are just political hacks or have no clue how business works.
Click to expand...


From the article:

Instead, the company will direct retirees to Medicare-backed insurance programs
Click to expand...

But this article is not making sense. No insurance Co. insures people 65 or older that is when medicare takes over. The only thing one can get is a supplemental policy.
 
winston53660 said:
This doesn't make sense because insurance companies do not insure people 65 or older period unless it is a supplemental policy.
Click to expand...

It has to do with tax increases and subsidies that were not quite enough to entice the employers to keep them. 3M found it to be much cheaper to let them go to the government, as many predicted would happen and democrats claimed was just fear mongering. 3M is just the first to make this decision. There will be more.
 
winston53660 said:
From the article:



But this article is not making sense. No insurance Co. insures people 65 or older that is when medicare takes over. The only thing one can get is a supplemental policy.
Click to expand...

I was not talking to the retiree question but to the point that rates going up have nothing to do with the HC bill.

On the retiree issue, I am not sure why it is happening now. But I can tell you that my father in law who is retired was just notified by a fortune 500 company the same thing as is being discussed.
 
washunut said:
I was not talking to the retiree question but to the point that rates going up have nothing to do with the HC bill.
Click to expand...

I agree and it is amazing when rates went up 23% just few years ago we did not hear this.

On the retiree issue, I am not sure why it is happening now. But I can tell you that my father in law who is retired was just notified by a fortune 500 company the same thing as is being discussed.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure but I smell a rat somewhere.
 
washunut said:
Aren't people ashamed to write/ read junk that is purely dogmatic. People may like the goodies in the bill, I do as well. However to say that uncapping payments, insuring kids under 26, etc have no cost is silly. Since there is a cost then what do you expect, it gets passed along. To say that it was great to get a bunch of free stuff makes me wonder if people are serious, are just political hacks or have no clue how business works.
Click to expand...

So, you freely admit that when Obama said over and over that premiums would go down, because of the healthcare bill, he was either lieing his ass off, or he's just too damn stupid to be president?

Of course alot of us here in the real world knew that premiums were going to sky rocket. I seem to remember being called a hack and a racist for opposing the bill.
 
apdst said:
So, you freely admit that when Obama said over and over that premiums would go down, because of the healthcare bill, he was either lieing his ass off, or he's just too damn stupid to be president?

Of course alot of us here in the real world knew that premiums were going to sky rocket. I seem to remember being called a hack and a racist for opposing the bill.
Click to expand...

Of course I admit the obvious. How do you keep supply the same, increase demand and have costs go down. Never made any sense except for people who were blinded by ideology.
 
Healthcare premiums will go down when the insurance companies that friviously raise their premiums realize that they will not be eligible to be apart of the new pool of clients under the government plan. These raises, I feel are nothing more than attempts to scare the public into returning the insurance game back to the conditions that favor the insurance companies over patients. As far as companies dumping retirees, I see this as a good thing. Companies cannot afford to continue to be competitive while being responsible for healthcare of those it no longer employs, this is insane. If anything, it should help in corporations being able to give better raises to working individuals as they will no longer be burdened with lifetime healthcare costs of employees.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Healthcare premiums will go down when the insurance companies that friviously raise their premiums realize that they will not be eligible to be apart of the new pool of clients under the government plan. These raises, I feel are nothing more than attempts to scare the public into returning the insurance game back to the conditions that favor the insurance companies over patients. As far as companies dumping retirees, I see this as a good thing. Companies cannot afford to continue to be competitive while being responsible for healthcare of those it no longer employs, this is insane. If anything, it should help in corporations being able to give better raises to working individuals as they will no longer be burdened with lifetime healthcare costs of employees.
Click to expand...

So we were told during the health care debate that premiums were up because there was a lack of competition, now you say they will go down with less competition! Do you realize how silly that sounds. Either that or intellectually dishonest.

As far as retirees getting dumped. Again a major promise by our president was that if you liked your insurance you would be able to keep it. Now it is a good idea for people to lose their insurance to make companies more profitable!

With logic like this from someone who is probably better informed than the average person, well as the saying goes:

" People get the government they deserve".
 
washunut said:
So we were told during the health care debate that premiums were up because there was a lack of competition, now you say they will go down with less competition! Do you realize how silly that sounds. Either that or intellectually dishonest.

As far as retirees getting dumped. Again a major promise by our president was that if you liked your insurance you would be able to keep it. Now it is a good idea for people to lose their insurance to make companies more profitable!

With logic like this from someone who is probably better informed than the average person, well as the saying goes:

" People get the government they deserve".
Click to expand...

First of all, please read what I say, not attach your own meaning to it. I said that premiums will stop going up for nefarious reasons. Second, how is it that competition is reduced? Have any insurance companies closed down recently? If anything cost should be reduced because there will be more people to spread the cost over.

When the President said that you can keep your employer based insurance, I should think he meant for those who were currently employed, or paying for their own plans. Expecting companies to continually cover people for life, even as the cost of insurance goes-up is ludicrous.

Finally, I simply do not understand people who defend the current system when the US is one of the lowest nations in life-expectancy, infant mortality, and many other areas of healthcare when compared to other nations such as Japan, that possess universal healthcare completely ran by the government. Do we want poor healthcare overall for a high price so that a minority of rich can have the best while everyone else gets some of the worst, and we can call it "market-driven?"
 
tlmorg02 said:
First of all, please read what I say, not attach your own meaning to it. I said that premiums will stop going up for nefarious reasons. Second, how is it that competition is reduced? Have any insurance companies closed down recently? If anything cost should be reduced because there will be more people to spread the cost over.

When the President said that you can keep your employer based insurance, I should think he meant for those who were currently employed, or paying for their own plans. Expecting companies to continually cover people for life, even as the cost of insurance goes-up is ludicrous.

Finally, I simply do not understand people who defend the current system when the US is one of the lowest nations in life-expectancy, infant mortality, and many other areas of healthcare when compared to other nations such as Japan, that possess universal healthcare completely ran by the government. Do we want poor healthcare overall for a high price so that a minority of rich can have the best while everyone else gets some of the worst, and we can call it "market-driven?"
Click to expand...

Our system is the result of government interference into the lives of the people to begin with. You want the government to be even more involved when it has shown, historically, that it mucks things up?
 
If anyone thought the insurance companies weren't at critical mass and were going to change things anyway I would have to find that naive. There were changes a'comin' due to all the baby boomers. Insurance companies have been predatory commodity traders for too long. It is time to shift the paradigm. Making the obscene profits by Healthcare CEO's is unacceptable. They make 100's time more than the physicians and staff who are doing the work. Pre DRG physicians took their eye off the ball (too much golf, vacation, trading on stock market, etc.) and insurance companies and some crafty attoneys swooped in and stole the show. It is just another example of parasite v host. I am all for anything to bring down healthcare companies who make billions off sick folk. Well, rather well folk because they drop sick ones as not profitable.
 
tlmorg02 said:
First of all, please read what I say, not attach your own meaning to it. I said that premiums will stop going up for nefarious reasons. Second, how is it that competition is reduced? Have any insurance companies closed down recently? If anything cost should be reduced because there will be more people to spread the cost over.

When the President said that you can keep your employer based insurance, I should think he meant for those who were currently employed, or paying for their own plans. Expecting companies to continually cover people for life, even as the cost of insurance goes-up is ludicrous.

Finally, I simply do not understand people who defend the current system when the US is one of the lowest nations in life-expectancy, infant mortality, and many other areas of healthcare when compared to other nations such as Japan, that possess universal healthcare completely ran by the government. Do we want poor healthcare overall for a high price so that a minority of rich can have the best while everyone else gets some of the worst, and we can call it "market-driven?"
Click to expand...

Go re-read what you wrote. You said that insurance comapnies will stop raising rates when they FIGURE OUT THEY WON'T BE ELIGIBLE TO ENTER THE NEW GOVERNMENT POOLS.

On the second point the president made no such disclaimer. If he did the public would have been even more pissed than they are now.

I do not defend the current system. I do not like to advocate one position by distorting another. As to your last statement, we live in a capitalistic system. If you agree with capitalism and not utopia then the rich get the best, hopefully with appropriate safety nets the poor are better off than they can really afford.
 
tlmorg02 said:
First of all, please read what I say, not attach your own meaning to it. I said that premiums will stop going up for nefarious reasons. Second, how is it that competition is reduced? Have any insurance companies closed down recently? If anything cost should be reduced because there will be more people to spread the cost over.

When the President said that you can keep your employer based insurance, I should think he meant for those who were currently employed, or paying for their own plans. Expecting companies to continually cover people for life, even as the cost of insurance goes-up is ludicrous.

Finally, I simply do not understand people who defend the current system when the US is one of the lowest nations in life-expectancy, infant mortality, and many other areas of healthcare when compared to other nations such as Japan, that possess universal healthcare completely ran by the government. Do we want poor healthcare overall for a high price so that a minority of rich can have the best while everyone else gets some of the worst, and we can call it "market-driven?"
Click to expand...

Allegedly nefarious reasons will be replaced with legitimate reasons. How does that help things?
 
The_Patriot said:
Our system is the result of government interference into the lives of the people to begin with. You want the government to be even more involved when it has shown, historically, that it mucks things up?
Click to expand...

If companies had and exercised some self governance and weren't out to squeeze the last bit'0 shyte from the public's buffalo nickel then there would be NO need for government to "interfer". Free market has been taken over by unadulterated greed.
 
washunut said:
Go re-read what you wrote. You said that insurance comapnies will stop raising rates when they FIGURE OUT THEY WON'T BE ELIGIBLE TO ENTER THE NEW GOVERNMENT POOLS.

On the second point the president made no such disclaimer. If he did the public would have been even more pissed than they are now.

I do not defend the current system. I do not like to advocate one position by distorting another. As to your last statement, we live in a capitalistic system. If you agree with capitalism and not utopia then the rich get the best, hopefully with appropriate safety nets the poor are better off than they can really afford.
Click to expand...

So from me saying that companies will cease needless increases I am saying they will reduce cost? No, I am saying that the rate of increase will slow.

If the president could control the acts of every company you would then complain that we have become a socialist nation.

And finally, I distort nothing. The system is what it is. It is inferior to other systems and healthcare should not be a product to be bought and sold, but a service that "humans" have access to. I realize in this country most have become indoctrinated with "capitalism" is the solution to everything, but ideas and theories can only go so far in promoting the betterment of man. Why do so many simply want to sit still in the evolution of society and life, rather than see a world that may be better for all.
 
apdst said:
Allegedly nefarious reasons will be replaced with legitimate reasons. How does that help things?
Click to expand...

It slows the rate of increase that exists only to feed greed. I do not argue that capitalism is bad, but I do argue that capitalism should never come before human life.
 
sokpupet said:
If companies had and exercised some self governance and weren't out to squeeze the last bit'0 shyte from the public's buffalo nickel then there would be NO need for government to "interfer". Free market has been taken over by unadulterated greed.
Click to expand...

First off, the government interferred back in the 40's with an income tax of 90%, so companies offered insurance as a way of compensation. The federal government approved of it and let it slide. The advent of people not seeing a bill has caused insurance and health care rates to skyrocket. Mainly due to the federal government's interference once again by passing a law that forbade health insurance companies from competing across state lines. Add in the FDA approval process for medicines etc... and Medicare putting in price controls. That's not free market, but government interference.
 
Last edited:
The_Patriot said:
First off, the government interferred back in the 40's with an income tax of 90%, so companies offered insurance as a way of compensation. The federal government approved of it and let it slide. The advent of people not seeing a bill has caused insurance and health care rates to skyrocket. Mainly due to the federal government's interference once again by passing a law that forbade health insurance companies from competing across state lines. Add in the FDA approval process for medicines etc... and Medicare putting in price controls. That's not free market, but government interference.
Click to expand...

The reason the government forbade insurance companies from competiting across state lines was to prevent insurance companies for setting up shop in states that allowed to do as they wished and pushing it on all patients. The government controls were put into place to attempt to stop the leak of those who could no longer afford healthcare from becoming a gusher that it is now becoming. But I realize that most feel that allowing companies to make extravagant profits is far more important than saving human lives.
 
tlmorg02 said:
The reason the government forbade insurance companies from competiting across state lines was to prevent insurance companies for setting up shop in states that allowed to do as they wished and pushing it on all patients. The government controls were put into place to attempt to stop the leak of those who could no longer afford healthcare from becoming a gusher that it is now becoming. But I realize that most feel that allowing companies to make extravagant profits is far more important than saving human lives.
Click to expand...

Doesn't wash since car insurance companies are allowed to compete across state lines and car insurance premiums are quite low per person. The government controls were put into place in order to dictate the price of goods and services in health care. Of course, doing this caused health care providers to commit fraud in order to earn the money that they should have originally. I want you to provide proof that insurance companies have huge profits, so I want a source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom